I would like to start a thread about what the cord tied to JonBenet's wrists was all about.

First question: When was this cord tied to her wrists?

Second: If it was on her wrists during the assult and murder, where could she reach to, such as how far behind herself, while it was on her. Obviously, whether or not the wrist-cord was on during the strangulation, she was able to reach the front of her neck to leave scratch marks on her neck while desperately trying to get at the cord around her neck, and she was also able to get the killer's DNA under her fingernails. But we don't know exactly what part of his body she was able to scratch. If he was behind her during the strangulation, could she reach his face? It seems to me that perhaps she could, unless the way the garotte was fashioned left him enough distance to be back from her, from behind, that she could not reach parts of him, except perhaps for HIS wrist not completely covered by a glove.....? I think the wrist cord is important because the killer's DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails - her HANDS.

Third: It seems that the duct tape may have been just for show, i.e., that it was not functional such as to stop her from maneuvering it off her mouth to scream even without being able to use her hands, and that it may well have been applied after she was dead. Was the wrist cord put on just for show, or did have some functional purpose? If it had a functional purpose, how was it used for that. My thinking is that it was used only to limit how far she could reach, especially behind herself where the perp was while he was strangling her. And if she could reach the front of her neck while she was being strangled, surely she could reach her mouth to remove duct tape.

General background #1: JonBenet's killer bound her wrists tightly, with a single cord with a fair length of cord between her wrists. The autopsy report does not have any mention of even mild abrasions or redness on her wrists that would have been expected, for example, if the killer had used the wrist cord to hang JonBenet up, using this cord, by her arms. But she was found with her arms over her head. Why? Also, the cord tied to JonBenet's wrists was not attached to the garotte cord, at least the way she was found.

General backgroud #2: One-eyed Jack responded to DonB on the garotte thread: I am copying it over here because we also need to ask, why was the wrist cord needed? The answer to this question about about the wrist cord may help clarify things about the garotte with one exception. The wrist cord did not kill JonBenet. The use of the garotte DID kill JonBenet.

"I think the primary questions shoule be:Was the garotte needed? If not, what advantages did it in fact provide or could it have reasonably been expected to provide?In other words, WHY a garotte.Why take the time to fashion it, why employ it?"

There are a couple of options:

1: It was part of a fantasy involving:

A. Sexual motive with a bondage componentB. Thrill and curiosity about killing another human being in thatparticular way. Perhaps he saw that imagery somewhere.

2: It was not fantasy material and was done for utilitarian purposes:

A: It hurt his handsB: He is unable to sustain the pressure for several minutes becauseof grip strength.C: It was meant to give the appearance, along with the wrist cords,of a sexually motivated crime so investigators would not digdeeper for any other motive. Add in a ransom note, and you've gota very confusing crime scene.

I also believe the garotte was first tied in the front while JonBenet was lying on her back and then she was turned over. (This may have been the time when she was able to get the offender's skin cells under her fingernails.) Then the cord was tightened. Some of her hair was entangled in the knot and broke off when the offender changed the position from front to back. If you look at the autopsy photos, there is what appears to be a blood blister or pinch mark at the top of the abrasion on the front of her throat. What does it mean? It could just be a large petechia, but it's got me wondering. It's obvious pressure was applied both lower down on the throat and in the final furrow. There is the lower linear mark and petechia both above and below the furrow. Petechia are only found above the strangulation point."

I do not think that the cord hurt his hands or even that he thought it might hurt his hands. Even if his grip strength were in the lowest ranges for a male, he would still have been able to strangle a six year old girl. I threw out this issue for discussion, but have little real belief in a grown man needing a garotte. Desiring it for a little added fun? Yes. But needing it? No.

I would agree that reaching the neck but not the lips would seem strange.

It is possible that he put his foot on her back as he pulled on the cord but I think he would have preferred to watch her slow death and that she was on her back.

The long cord may have been so that her hands were relatively free for her to "use" them in a variety of manners, including flailing helplessly about, since he may have found that entertaining. He may have found certain other things entertaining for him.

They are bound and placed face down with their legs bent up behind them. A cord is looped around their neck and tied to their bound feet. As their own leg muscles loose strength the motion of their own feet tightens the cord around their neck, so that they literally strangle themselves.

It seems her feet were not bound and this scenario would not require a paintbrush handle. However, I wonder if the great length of the hand cord might have had some similar purpose?

>PLEASE - Start using the forums at >http://www.webbsleuths.org>>Hopefully all the forums will be there soon - - this area >will be closed. >>Today it is going to be in the 60's here - a beautiful day - >and I am going to be out in the yard raking and washing >windows and.... >>If any of you are indoors and have the time to move threads, >please help out.... >>Thanks.

Warmer here too. But I'm not counting on it that the month of March won't see us shivering again one more time before old man winter gives up. Now, those who live in Minnesota and Maine and other northern places and mountain places will be just laughing at us, perhaps gently.

On topic, I don't see this forum or this thread yet over on webbsleuths.org. But it's ok - I will be patient.I wish I knew how to move threads and had time to learn how to do this. But I can and will be patient because this must be A LOT of work, and I don't think you, jameson, would be doing it if not for the better.

>They are bound and placed face down with their legs bent up >behind them. A cord is looped around their neck and tied to >their bound feet. As their own leg muscles loose strength >the motion of their own feet tightens the cord around their >neck, so that they literally strangle themselves.

>It seems her feet were not bound and this scenario would not >require a paintbrush handle. However, I wonder if the great >length of the hand cord might have had some similar purpose?

Personally, I don't think he put his foot on her back and pulled. The abrasion on her back is very small. I think the cord was looped twice around, the stick catching the second loop and tightened tourniquet style.

>I do not think that the cord hurt his hands or even that he >thought it might hurt his hands. Even if his grip strength >were in the lowest ranges for a male, he would still have >been able to strangle a six year old girl. I threw out this >issue for discussion, but have little real belief in a grown >man needing a garotte. Desiring it for a little added fun? >Yes. But needing it? No.

This is more likely true than not. He wanted to construct the garotte exactly the way he did and derived satisfaction from doing so. He probably saw this set-up somewhere and imagined using it to kill.

>It is possible that he put his foot on her back as he pulled >on the cord but I think he would have preferred to watch her >slow death and that she was on her back.

She was both on her back or side and on her tummy during the commission of the crime. I want to apologize in advance for discussing this aspect because it is terrible to contemplate. Personally, I believe it will give a clearer picture of the offender if it is candidly discussed. It has been hypothesized that JonBenét was strangled by the cord being thrown around the neck and then riding up to its final position. I think this is right. However, we know the knot was in the back when she was found, and if you look at the autopsy photo, you can see her hair is swept along with the cord all the way from right to left, and the necklace, instead of being rolled into the cord is caught along the edge. I don't know why that is. With the directional pattern of the lower linear mark and abrasion, it looks like she was approached from the left side while lying on her back or right side. It looks like the first tightening of the cord was done near the front because of the injury at the top of the large abrasion on the front of the throat. It looks like a pinch mark from the cord. The noose was rotated from front/semi-front to back for the final strangulation.

>The long cord may have been so that her hands were >relatively free for her to "use" them in a variety of >manners, including flailing helplessly about, since he may >have found that entertaining. He may have found certain >other things entertaining for him.

I think the cords are the length they are because he pulled the original piece at the point of sale or from wherever in the way we all do...like pulling our garden hose or rolling up a long electrical cord. I think, in the house, he, more or less, folded the cord in half and cut it with a dull or serrated knife.

There is no mention of wrist injury in the autopsy report. The cords were placed on top of her sleeves and there is no sign of the sleeves being wrinkled, no sign of any movement while the cords were in place. If her arms were flailing about while the cords were on they would not, in any way, look so neat and tidy. In my opinion, the cords were placed after death. She died by srangulation face down, but the cords were placed while she was facing the offender, or her arms were extended above her head during the strangulation and placed then. Either way, she was turned over and placed in the windowless room on her back with the wrist cords in prominent display. The wrist cords, in my opinion, were part of a posing scenario as was the tape and blanket.

Jameson, I tried to move threads to the other forum. Unfortunately, every time I try to log in to do so, I get the message my account has not been activated. If you have the time to activate it over there, I have some time today to move threads. We'll just have to coordinate who moves what:)

part of what OEJ wrote:"...However, we know the knot was in the back when she was found, and if you look at the autopsy photo, you can see her hair is swept along with the cord all the way from right to left, and the necklace, instead of being rolled into the cord is caught along the edge. I don't know why that is. With the directional pattern of the lower linear mark and abrasion, it looks like she was approached from the left side while lying on her back or right side. It looks like the first tightening of the cord was done near the front because of the injury at the top of ion on thethe large abras front of the throat. It looks like a pinch mark from the cord. The noose was rotated from front/semi-front to back for the final strangulation...."

One-eyed Jack, thanks much for your excellent post.

I think you describe these possible steps in the way the murder could have taken place, in a very thorough way.

I do think your theories belong here.

The cords on her hands relate to how she was able to get the perp's DNA under her fingernails.

What is unclear is why he left her hands so free, with what perhaps was only pretend binding of her hands.

He could have easily bound her hands in a way that her hands would not be free.

She was free to grasp at her neck to try to get the cord off that was strangling her and to reach some part of the killer's body, such that his DNA was found under her finger nails.

Also, I don't think JonBenet was killed facing the killer. I think the perp is a coward who lives in a fantasy world, and would not look any Ramsey in the eye, including his small, very young victim, JonBenet. I think he strangled her and then bashed her with a strong blow to her head, from behind her. But I don't know. Someone does, and some on the forum have more common sense and expertise and knowledge about this than I do.

You mentioned a large abrasion on JonBenet's neck that I have not addressed. I wellcome your further comments if you have any more about this.

If the killer is right-handed and the displaced bone is on the right side above the ear, running from front to back (7 x 4 inches), then I think the only way he could have struck her was from behind. Would she be laying down, sitting up, or standing?

If he is left-handed, then he would have struck her, facing her.

I believe he is right-handed. I cannot recall what I have read that has led me to that conclusion.

If he struck her from behind (because he is right-handed) and he struck her up high on the right side of her head, her head had to have moved toward the left, but she was found with her head turned to the right (autopsy report; rigor had set in by the time John found her). Would her head have flopped to the right when she was moved, maybe?

I don't believe JonBenét would have regained consciousness BEFORE dying from this blow to the head. So (if that's the case), the clawing at the ligature had to have happened BEFORE the blow to the head. So, what I envision is that she was being strangled while conscious (clawed at the ligature), received the blow to the head (leaving her unconscious), and then strangled again (until death).

Hand-bindings:

The hands being bound does not seem to serve any purpose, other than maybe appearances. Maybe they were applied AFTER death. Maybe they were applied BEFORE death as an added element of terrorizing JonBenét.

A foot on the back - I would think there would be a boot imprint on her shirt if that were the case.

>A foot on the back - I would think there would be a boot >imprint on her shirt if that were the case. Not necessarily. He might well have placed his 'ditty bag' in which he removed the roll of duct tape, stun gun, etc. on her back and placed his foot atop that.

However, I do think it more likely he wanted to watch her face and watch her ineffectual clawing at the ligature.

Perhaps one reason for the rather wimpy 'bondage' set-up with the widely separated hands is that he enjoyed having those hands relatively free to struggle. I think he enjoyed a greater sense of power over her by watching her ineffectual efforts than he would have enjoyed if he had merely bound her so tightly that she was immobilized. Sort of like that hunter in Alaska who released naked women and then hunted them down. He could have killed them right away, but he enjoyed the 'sport' of hunting them. He wanted them to struggle even though it was a futile effort on their part.